LG vs Maytag washers: an incident-report comparison

What this LG vs Maytag comparison is based on#

Read the difference column on this page from top to bottom and it points one way almost the whole distance. Maytag holds the higher share in six of the eight shared rows, two rows show no measured difference, and the single row where LG leads does so by one point. That is an unusually one-sided table, and most of it is a story about denominators.

The records are CPSC SaferProducts incident reports covering 2011 to 2026 for both brands: 295 naming an LG washer and 104 naming a Maytag one. Both are collections of complaints somebody submitted, and the CPSC publishes no count of machines sold or in service, so none of these shares is a failure rate.

The taller column is the smaller corpus#

One Maytag report is worth about one percentage point of its column. One LG report is worth about a third of a point. So before any component is named, the Maytag column has a structural tendency to print bigger numbers, and the comparison has to be read against that.

The control board illustrates it. Maytag's share is 8% and LG's is 5%, a 3-point gap — but the counts underneath are 8 Maytag filings against 14 LG ones. Nearly twice as many people filed an LG control board report, and the LG share is the smaller of the two.

The widest row is also the thinnest#

The heating element separates the two by 4 points, the largest figure in the difference column: 4% of the Maytag reports against 0% of the LG ones. Underneath it are 4 Maytag filings and 1 LG filing.

Five documents in total produce the widest gap on a page built from 399 reports. The LG cell rounds down rather than being empty, and the Maytag cell sits on four pieces of paper. It is a row to note and not one to lean on.

One row where the direction survives#

The drain pump or hose is at 3% of the Maytag reports against 1% of the LG ones, on 3 filings against 3. Identical counts on both sides, so even this row is a denominator effect rather than a difference in the paperwork.

Which leaves the honest summary: on this page there is no component where Maytag holds both the higher share and more filings. Every lead in that column is produced by dividing a smaller or equal number of documents by a smaller corpus.

Two rows that tie and one that leans LG#

The lint trap or vent shows no measured difference — 3% in both columns, on 8 LG filings against 3 Maytag ones. Neither does the motor: 4% in both, on 13 LG filings against 4 Maytag ones. Those are the two best-evidenced rows on the page and they separate nothing.

The water valve or line is the only row leaning LG, at 2% against 1% on 5 filings against 1, and the table marks it as within one-report noise.

The component only one record names#

LG's list includes an igniter at 3%, on 8 filings. Maytag's list does not mention it at all. That is the one asymmetry here with any real weight behind it, and it sits on the side of the table that loses almost every other row.

Eleven components appear in the LG record against eight in the Maytag one — a difference that 295 documents against 104 largely explains, since a large corpus can carry a single mention without distorting its column. Four LG entries do exactly that, rounding to 0% on one filing apiece.

The practical read#

Both records are led by the control board — 8% of the Maytag reports on 8 filings, 5% of the LG reports on 14. After that, LG's record spreads its second tier across the motor, the wiring or power cord, the igniter and the lint trap or vent between 4% and 3%, while Maytag's ties the heating element, motor and wiring at 4% and puts the drain pump or hose and lint trap at 3%.

Neither list points anywhere with force, and the table's apparent tilt toward Maytag does not survive being read in documents. What the page supports is a shared shortlist and a caution about how it was measured.

LG vs Maytag washers: what the reports mention#

Both columns are shares of their own corpus, and the corpora differ in size. LG: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for LG washers, 2011-2026, n=295. Maytag: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Maytag washers, 2011-2026, n=104. A difference no larger than one report on either side is marked "within one-report noise".

About the corpus: these are CPSC SaferProducts reports — incidents someone chose to report, not units sold — so the shares on this page are shares of the reports and never a failure rate. The corpus is weighted toward safety events: 12,007 of its 20,581 records (58%) are fire, smoke, burn or melt reports, which over-represents the components that burn and under-represents the ones that merely stop working.

LG washers: the reported component split#

LG washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for LG washers, 2011-2026, n=295.

Shares of reports, not failure rates — see the corpus note above.

Maytag washers: the reported component split#

Maytag washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Maytag washers, 2011-2026, n=104.

Shares of reports, not failure rates — see the corpus note above.

How to use these numbers#

What this comparison can settle: which components the reported incidents of each brand actually concentrate on, for this appliance. What it cannot settle: which brand fails more often. That would need units sold, and no public source states it. Use the component split to plan for the repair each brand is most reported for, not to rank the two.